Talk:Disputes in English grammar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 9, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Archive

Archive1 — discussions from 4 December 2003 to 5 April 2006:

  1. Older, uncategorized dicussion
  2. NPOV dispute
  3. Singular they
  4. It's a little bit too soon for April Fool's Day isnt it?,
  5. Couldn't of?
  6. The Polish equivalent of, "It is I"

[edit] Fats Waller

In the section "Generic you", Smallbones has added the following: 'Or as Fats Waller said "One never knows, do one."' Rather than getting into a revert war, I think we should discuss the change. What exactly does adding this do for the article? To me, it is a quote without context that doesn't make sense. It seems to be a malapropism, as I noted in my edit summary. I don't see how the Fats Waller (uncited) quote is "stilted or pretentious" -- it doesn't even use the correct agreement of subject and verb.

Smallbones, your revert (without discussion) of my removal states "it's not a malapropism - it's satire on the stilted or pretentious". That may be, but unexplained satire, when not clearly marked as satire, has no place on Wikipedia. To retain the comment, please provide a context. But I maintain that the "Generic you" section is stronger without this addition, which needlessly complicates the example. -Phoenixrod 08:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Waller quote is 'neat' example of non-standard use of generic one; not sure that it adds anything to this article, which is after all condensed version of the main article and is all about generic you and not/not generic one - my suggestion would be if it fits anywhere it would be the main article (though I am not even certain of that) - the whole aim of these pieces is short&sweet & if the reader needs/wants more the main art is there.Bridesmill 13:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That's how I feel. Ruakh has changed the quote so that it makes more sense, but the question becomes this: Does it add something significant to this article's discussion of generic you to have a tangent on "one"? Perhaps the Fats Waller comment would be better off not in this article at all. It could fit better in the larger generic you article, if anywhere. -Phoenixrod 22:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A radical proposal.

I think that this article is headed (albeit rather slowly) down a bad road. As I see it, there are three major problems: firstly, that there are many, many points of dispute in English grammar, and we don't have any clear criterion for what to include here; secondly, that a lot of these are controversial topics, and that the consensus-building efforts in the various main articles (e.g. Singular they) aren't getting reflected here; and thirdly, that a lot of these are complex topics that are difficult to treat so briefly.

If I may make a radical proposal, I think this article should focus on general concepts of disputed English grammar — especially the different kinds of arguments that people make for or against various usages — and all the sections on specific disputes should get removed, their content being moved into the relevant main articles (if there's anything useful here that's not already there). We could simply have a list of disputed-English-grammar-related articles, perhaps with an example accompanying each list item (so that it's clear what each means without having to follow the link). Say, something like:

  • Split infinitive — whether e.g. "to boldly go" should instead be "to go boldly"
  • Singular they — whether e.g. "someone forgot their shoes" should instead be "someone forgot his shoes"
  • Generic you — whether e.g. "brushing your teeth is health" should instead be "brushing one's teeth is healthy"

and so on. (Each individual article would of course give details on the history of the supposed rule and of violations of it, and on what style guides say what, and so on.)

Any thoughts?

Ruakh 02:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'd wait a few days to see if anyone vehemently opposes. But after that, I heartily support you implement this suggestion. Nohat 07:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've written a proposed new version and placed it at Talk:Disputed English grammar/Proposed rewrite; please comment here. (I'll wait a few days to see if there are any objections; if not, I'll implement the change.) Thanks! Ruakh 04:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Fats

I didn't know I was stepping into such as storm of controversy. My point was to properly deflate such a pompous usage. A couple of facts:

The Fats quote is from the 1943 movie Stormy Weather. He also used it on one or two of his 1943 V-discs, perhaps on (dare I say it?) "Ain't Misbehavin'."
"One never knows, do one?" is not a malapropism. It does not substitute a word with one meaning for that of another. It simply uses what should be reasonable grammar (since one here really means you) with an unreasonable, pompous word. Thus it is simply a satire of the pompous.
The use of the word you here doesn't seem to be disputed grammar according to the article itself. So the title of this section seems to be reversed - it is this use of the word one that is what is really disputed.

I was unaware that there are main articles on these things, and perhaps the quote ought to go there, but there are several examples there already on how nobody could ever keep this silly usage straight.

The comment above this section on the wrong direction of this article has some merit. Much of this article seems to be a protest against standard modern usage, rather than anything about disputed usage. Perhaps there's something in here (that should be brought out) about US vs. Brit usage. One never knows, do one? Smallbones 12:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Smallbones, I agree that "malapropism" was the wrong word. I did a quick Google search for "One never knows, do one" and found a reference calling it a malapropism; I seem not to have looked hard enough, so I apologize for the hasty term "malapropism". I simply meant that the Fats quote was grammatically illogical (from my vantage point, as Bridesmill points out below): I think of "one" in English as similar to a third-person gender-neutral pronoun like the French "on". As such, I don't see how one really means you, at least grammatically. If it did, Fats might have said, "One never know, do one?"
I am intrigued by the claim that you were "properly deflat[ing] such a pompous usage". Again, it may be a case of audience or regional differences, but the use of "one" is not always pompous in my experience, though I grant that one can easily step over the line into bombast. So I wonder if it is indeed "proper" to do anything other than show what is disputed about the grammatical constructions in this article. I agree that Ruakh's proposal would involve a lot of work, but it seems like a good solution for all parties. -Phoenixrod 11:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting comment; which brings to fore regional/dialect & host of other socio-linguistic issues, where 'disputes' often appear to be grounded in class-related dialectic etc etc (NO I AM NOT A MARXIST ;-)) Curious you should mention 'pompous' - where I am it is not considered 'such pompous usage' at all; although admittedly there are few cases when it is appropriate, it is not dismissed out-of-hand. So we have a conflict based on several people being 'correct', but only in their own context & the greater context is really a hypothetical construct. Which underscores importance IMHO of Ruakh's proposal - it would be a Sisyphean task to keep this article & the individual articles agreeing with each other, and somehow when not managed well the articles can come across as disjointed puerile attacks on 'the establishment' rather than discussions of trends in gramatical disputes. I believe the American english article may have some impact, as should other dialects. Could be a difficult & potentially controversial article rewrite, but concept has merit & it would fill a void rather than (as it is doing now) create more dispute/confusion. I'd be willing to collaborate; if you will forgive my prescriptive/descriptive bipolarity.Bridesmill 12:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't see the point. It just makes things even more confusing, imhoOreo man 21:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prescriptive/descriptive: common usage seen as defining correctness

Hi Ruakh,

I see that you prefer to say that "many" would argue that a common enough usage can be taken to be correct by definition, instead of saying that "descriptive linguists" would say so. Why not be specific? I don't quite get it, and have reverted again. If you have a specific reason not to bring descriptive linguistics into that stage of the discussion, I'd be happy to drop the point. --Slashme 12:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have two problems with the current text ("descriptive linguists argue that if a usage is sufficiently common, it is by definition correct"):
  1. It's needlessly restrictive, and makes it sound like it's a technical argument, whereas the others are all presented as man-in-the-street arguments. (This is unfair to any of the arguments, really, since so many people think scientists are always right, but so many other people think the soft sciences are a bunch of hogwash.) But growing up, I was always hearing this line of argument — and not from linguists, but from people in general. And even prescriptivists sometimes use this line of argument with other prescriptivists; for example, Paul Brians' site Common Errors in English, which is fairly prescriptivist (it says e.g. "The primary job of a dictionary is to track how people actually use language. [...] the goal of a usage guide like this is substantially different: to protect you against patterns which are regarded by substantial numbers of well-educated people as nonstandard"), uses arguments like "Everyone knows what is meant by it and almost everyone uses it" in defending constructions (in this case, the phrase "near miss" [1]).
  2. It uses the term descriptive, which hasn't been explained, and which is explained just a paragraph later. There are two problems with this: firstly, people might take the sentence in question to be the explanation of the term "descriptive linguist," when if it is, then it's a very simplistic explanation of a nuanced concept (not your fault; there just isn't room there), and secondly, people might go off to read Prescription and description who really would be satisfied with the level of information in Disputed English grammar#Prescription and description. Why send people to another article before they know whether they're interested in it?
Ruakh 13:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. I've reverted it to pretty much what you had. --Slashme 06:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The result is outright WP:WEASEL words. Can't anything else be worked out? Circeus 01:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the weasel. Except possibly the "one very common"; but if you look at all of the disputes, that certainly describes it - - a very common theme is the precript/descript dichotomy.Bridesmill 02:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Circeus: You're technically correct — that section uses several expressions almost identical to ones on the list of weasel words — but I think it's appropriate, and not actually weaselly, in this case. The point of this section is simply to list arguments that are commonly encountered; whether any specific expert agrees with them is irrelevant. NPOV is served in this case by providing a wide range of arguments representing a range of points of view. (If you read through Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and read about the major problems with weasel words, you'll see that this section doesn't currently have them, because it's not using the weasel words to imply support for its position. We just need to take care to ensure that it never starts to.) Ruakh 02:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regional dialects and ethnolects

I was tempted to internationalize this, as I have certainly encountered this myself & have seen lots of anecdotal evidence - we accept huge variances from 'foreign' english-speakers, while cavilling about minor variances in our own backyard. I've seen Brits, Canadians, and Australians do it. But I have not seen any formal work on this - I'l have a look around Ebscohost to see if anyone has done any work on this recently. Ruakh - Good work on sorting this article, BTW.Bridesmill 02:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Why, thank you! :-) Ruakh 12:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's I/It's me

This topic is still redirected to this page, but no clear reference to this subject could be found here. I suggest splitting the part about this subject from the older version to a new page. How do you think? Tache 14:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The traditional term for the I in It's I is predicate nominative (see Nominative case); I suppose you could start the article on that. Ruakh 18:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Foreseeable vanishing up one's own anus on this, but grammatically it should be It am I (cf. sum ego; son' io). But no-one seems to have thought of that one. Ah, Disputed English grammar: a honeypot to a hornet.
Nuttyskin 03:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, no; English isn't Latin. "It am I" did historically exist, but there's nothing inherently more grammatical about viewing "I" as the subject and "it" as the predicate nominative than about viewing "It" as the subject and "I" as the predicate nominative, and hence saying "It is I." And for that matter, there's nothing inherently more grammatical about giving predicate nouns the subjective (nominative) case than about giving them the objective case, and hence saying "It is me." Ruakh 16:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that English isn't Latin — hence, their different syntax —, but how do you come to the conclusion that "It is I" is not inherently more grammatical than "It is me". Do you distinguish "grammaticalness" by usage or principles? "It am I" is definitely ruled out by usage. But a noun in accusative case occupying the predicative nominative position is ungrammatical, by traditional grammar. Rintrah 09:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Note: Previously a different comment of mine appeared here, but it wasn't very clear (at least, judging from the reply to it). Readers interested in the previous comment and the reply to it should see this diff.
I don't see "usage" and "principles" to be at odds. Broadly speaking, principles are a way of describing usage. Sometimes the major principles of grammar have exceptions; for example, every verb has a single past indicative form (like did, had, saw, went, etc.), except for the verb be (which has the non-interchangeable past indicative forms was and were). It's ungrammatical to apply the single-past-indicative-form principle to be. So, we can't let principles of grammar completely supplant an understanding of grammatical usage.
So-called "traditional grammar" forbade a lot of things — split infinitives, stranded prepositions — that speakers and writers of Standard English have always used; traditional grammar was simply wrong much of the time, partly because those who dictated it often tried to transpose Latin norms onto English.
With the specific example at hand — "it's I" vs. "it's me" — ordinary Standard English uses objective pronouns everywhere except as the subject of a finite verb or as a grammatical possessor. (In the interest of intellectual honesty, my previous comment mentioned some exceptions, but you don't seem to have liked that, so whatever.) One exception is that above a certain level of formality, it's common to use subjective pronouns as predicate nouns; indeed, this is about the same level of formality above which contractions tend to be avoided, such that "it's me" and "it is I" get far more hits on Google than "it is me" and "it's I" get. But this doesn't mean that it's more correct to use a subjective pronoun, any more than that it's more correct to avoid contractions; it's simply that it's more formal.
Incidentally, "it is [I/he/she/etc.]" is almost an idiom; if you Google (for example) "it might be he" and "it might be him", while it's true that the former gets more raw hits, none of them (or almost none) are actually using he as a predicate noun (they're all substrings of "[...] it might be. He [...]" or "It might be [that] he [...]" or the like), while all (or almost all) of the latter are indeed using him as a predicate noun. (You get similar results with "it might be I" and "it might be me".) This suggests to me that even in formal speech, subjective pronouns are not used for predicate nouns, except in the special case that the copula is is.
Ruakh 18:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The reply is here: [2] Rintrah 19:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
In German one can say Ich bin es or das bin ich ("that am I") as Spanish allows eres tú. Peter O. (Talk) 08:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Yah, Spanish avoids the problem entirely by just using a subject and the verb ser (to be), and swapping their locations: Soy yo. = It is I. (I am.) Mi vida eres tú. = My life is you. (You are my life.) —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 10:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scare quotes

One should always be wary of editing grammar in a grammar article. I'm not sure what I walked in to.

As I read the sentence again ("Even when there is no evidence of a dispute over whether a construction is correct, English speakers sometimes experience anger on encountering grammatical errors.") I'm not even sure what it means. Are we trying to say that English speakers experience anger when they encounter a grammatical error, one that is so definitively an error that there is "no evidence of a dispute"? That's what it sounds like to me. Or rather, is it what I thought the article was trying to say (poorly) that I tried to correct with my "scare quotes": English speakers get angry at perceived errors even if many people would not consider it an error?

To be honest, I'm not sure what the sentence adds to the article. I propose we delete it.

--Selket 08:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it means, either. Rintrah 09:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: "Are we trying to say that English speakers experience anger when they encounter a grammatical error, one that is so definitively an error that there is 'no evidence of a dispute'?": Yes, that's what's meant there. Is there a better way to phrase it?
The purpose of the sentence is to make clear that the passions involved in English grammar disputes go further: not only do some people get angry when others dispute their claims about grammar, but some people get angry even when there is no dispute. It's not just the argument that impassions people, but the error itself (or perceived error, in the case of a dispute). I think this is a very essential point, as you can't even begin to understand the disputes in English grammar until you understand the strength of feeling involved.
—RuakhTALK 09:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
How about, "English speakers sometimes experience anger on encountering constructions that they believe are grammatical errors"? --Selket 09:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what this adds to the article; it is not specific. How is this any more informative than saying, "sometimes drivers get angry at other drivers when they think the other drivers are at fault"? The information has to be objective, not sentimental, for it to be of any worth. I don't understand the clarifying reply above, either. Rintrah 17:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The clarifying reply above is two full paragraphs; can you be more specific about what exactly you don't understand? —RuakhTALK 19:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I shall explain:
"some people get angry even when there is no dispute."
What does this mean?
"It's not just the argument that impassions people, but the error itself (or perceived error, in the case of a dispute)."
The argument impassions people? What do you mean? The act of arguing makes the debaters passionate? I understand the second part, but I don't see how being angry at a (perceived) error goes further than being angry at an error—I'm not sure exactly how to construe what you said. Please clarify.
I am concerned that the sentence discussed makes the article wander into the territory of an essay, instead of an encyclopedia article. We should confine the article to objective content, and not diverge to feelings, unless those feelings can be explained in something more concrete, and relevant. To illustrate, an article on a scientific theory should not include, "Some scientists experience anger when confronted with a conjecture not supported by scientific theory." — for obvious reasons, I hope. Rintrah 16:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The article is about disputes over English grammar. The article explains that some people feel passionately about English grammar, and get angry not just when someone argues with them over whether something is correct, but also when someone simply makes a mistake. And I see what you're saying, but disagree: this isn't the English grammar article, but rather the disputed English grammar article. By analogy, it would be well in scope for an article on the Evolution controversy to note the stakes and passions involved on both sides. —RuakhTALK 21:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned about the tone here: "Such disagreements are often quite impassioned; speakers are often very defensive of the rules of grammar that they learned in school." The sentence, by its tone, suggests these speakers are like silly, bickering school girls. Find another way of saying it, to agree with WP:NPOV. Rintrah 09:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still unconvinced (referenced or not) that it adds anything constructive to the article. To follow up on someone else's suggestion, go look at Traffic jam, and note that it does not say "Many drivers get angry at traffic jams even if they arn't anyone's fault." It's not that the statement can't be cited; I'm sure someone has done a study that concluded as much. It's just that the statement is trivial -- it adds nothing. --Selket Talk 09:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. It is also irrelevant: it is not so much about the matter of those disputes as the feelings in them, which is not an intellectual concern. I disagree with Ruakh that an article on the Evolution controversy should report the general feelings involved. If a creationist murders an evolutionary scientists, perhaps this is noteworthy; otherwise, describing feelings is distracting, trivial, and annoying. Rintrah 10:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
No, but it does say, "By increasing motorist stress and frustration, congestion can encourage road rage and cause reduced health of motorists." Also, there's the big difference that in this case, the passions involved are not just the result of the disputes, but a major contributor to the disputes. —RuakhTALK 19:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Even if you're right, it is difficult to express this informatively in an encyclopedia. Road rage is much better documented than grammar rage, if I may use a neologism. The sentence in question, as it is, is quite unsatisfying. Keep "Arguments are often impassioned", and expand the lead to introduce the rest of the article. Rintrah 07:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point about the tone. How about simply "Such disagreements are often quite impassioned"? This is more evenhanded, and rightly so: the defensiveness as often takes the form "I've always said it that way, so it must be right" as it does "I learned in school that it's wrong, so it must be wrong." —RuakhTALK 19:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: rename to Disputes in English grammar

I propose that we rename this article to Disputes in English grammar, since the phrase "disputed English grammar" is rather confusing: it doesn't make sense to say *"I dispute English grammar" or *"I dispute that bit of English grammar"; rather, you'd say "I dispute the claim that that rule is part of English grammar" or (conversely) "I dispute the claim that that construction is allowed by English grammar." —RuakhTALK 20:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. Rintrah 07:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in April 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
  • Copyeditor(s): Dvandersluis 21:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Proofreader: Otheus 16:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the irony of proofing an article on English grammar itself. I have reformatted the "Arguments" section. It really shouldn't be named "arguments", as these aren't exactly arguments. They are a list of tensions which lend credence to one construct over another. I have greatly edited this section, and I would appreciate constructive (pun intended) feedback. --Otheus 16:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence

Pardon me if I make a mistake here (I haven't had breakfast and I'm about to go out). Re: when speakers do make arguments to defend a usage, these arguments are often complicated by their reliance on false ideas on linguistic matters, such as the impression that an expression is newer than it really is. The reference only provides one example: "accepted to college". As far as I've read, the false ideas on usage usually pertain to expressions that have not been in the standard language for long, but in a dialect form for longer. Sometimes even a usage might die out and then be revived again, to be defended on its age. Would not it not be clearer to elaborate on "linguistic matters"? It is difficult to guess them solely from one example (that an expression is newer than it actually is). If the sentence were clearer, it would easier to verify it. RedRabbit1983 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I had problems with that to. Anyone care to comment on this?Otheus 03:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me play the devil's advocate for a moment. "These arguments are often complicated by their reliance on false ideas on linguistic matters" — sounds like: "These arguments are complicated by people getting stuff wrong." The latter, though, is not informative. RedRabbit1983 06:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There's been a lot of discussion about various "__ Illusion"-s in Language Log (a blog by a number of prominent linguists); specifically, Arnold Zwicky has written about a number of them. If you Google "frequency illusion", "recency illusion", "local color illusion", "adolescent illusion", or "out-group illusion", you'll find some examples. —RuakhTALK 13:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Could this not be made more clear in the article itself — instead of shifting the burden of proof to the reader? A better reference would fulfill the former end. RedRabbit1983 13:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High level of tolerance

In contrast to their general high level of tolerance for the dialects of other English-speaking countries, American English speakers often...

Is this meant as a joke, or does the writer really believe that US English speakers have a "high level of tolerance for the dialects of other English-speaking countries"? I don't have any hard figures, but I see bollocks like this everywhere, and all the time, and not just on Wikipedia. I would like a citation about this alleged "high level of tolerance", or I'll take it out within the next few days. Marnanel 16:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds plausible, but I agree, it has no place in the article without some kind of backup. Also, in my experience, what is often held up for disdain is not the use of "y'all" as a second person plural pronoun, but its use as the second person singular pronoun, as in "Y'all hand me that pie, please?" (I'm not suggesting that we put that in the article, though.) BrianTung 17:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Americans definitely negatively judge other Americans by their dialect more than they do speakers from other countries. There are countless examples of people describing AAVE as "lazy" or "sloppy" English (just listen to talk radio for half an hour), and it's well documented that people with Southern accents (and New Jersey accents) are less likely to be offered jobs, get mortgages, etc.
And the same is true in Canada, in England, etc. When a Londoner hears a Yorkie accent, there's an immediate negative reaction.
By contrast, to most Americans, anyone with an educated English accent (you know, Ringo Starr, Michael Caine, Sean Connery, Paul Hogan, Gerhard Schroeder) is automatically classy. --75.36.142.90 15:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Accent, maybe, but dialect? (And thanks for the laugh. :) ) Marnanel 04:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internationalizing "Regional dialects and ethnolects"

On top of being US-centric, this section mentioned only regional dialects, ignoring ethnolects. I've attempted to fix this by adding in Geordie (a UK dialect), Newfoundland (a Canadian dialect), and African-American Vernacular English (a US ethnolect). The intro still sounds weasely, and the run-on sentences runs even farther, but at least it's a start.

I chose these particular examples partly because they're obvious, and often provoke strong ridicule, but also because they point out that essentially the same issues divide speakers in every country: UK Northern/US Southern: y'all/yous, Newfie/African-American: it bes/it be. I don't have any good Australian, Indian, etc. examples, but that's probably only because I don't know their dialects.

As a side not, I noticed, after the fact, that in all four examples, the nonstandard dialect makes more distinctions than standard English, rather than fewer... Off the top of my head, that seems to be true of most nonstandard grammar (is it true typically?); if it makes the section look like it's trying to make a point, please find better examples. --75.36.142.90 15:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that to some extent nonstandard dialects are likely to allow more distinctions, because if the standard dialect makes a distinction the nonstandard does not, the nonstandard will adopt it easily and immediately, whereas the reverse is not true (though certainly nonstandard dialects can and do have an effect over time). Though I should say that it is possible to explicitly mark a given "you" as plural in Standard English ("you guys", "you all", "you lot", etc.); and there are consistent reports of some Southern U.S. speakers using "y'all" in all cases, in which case they don't really have that distinction. (I think these claims are dubious — I think that there is a distinction, and it is mostly singular/plural, though perhaps with some quirks — but can hardly style myself an expert on this.) —RuakhTALK 15:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double copulae

A distinction needs to be made between disputed usage and incorrect usage. In the case of the double copula, it's simply incorrect. Does any source say otherwise?81.157.63.47 (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yuck

This whole article is a load of indulgent, OR trash. Torgo (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)